Final answer:
The neighbor is not liable for Kelley's injuries because she was trespassing, and the law typically does not hold property owners liable for injuries to unforeseeable trespassers unless there is gross misconduct or intentional harm. However, the 'attractive nuisance' doctrine could affect liability if Kelley is a child.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question regarding whether the neighbor is liable for Kelley's injuries after she fell through thin ice involves understanding premises liability law. The correct answer is b. No. Kelley was a trespasser and the neighbor can only be held liable for intentionally injuring her or for gross misconduct. Liability generally does not extend to unforeseeable trespassers, and while property owners must ensure their property is safe for expected visitors, this duty does not usually apply to trespassers. However, there are exceptions such as the 'attractive nuisance' doctrine which might increase a homeowner's liability if the injured party is a child who was drawn to a hazardous condition that should have been anticipated by the homeowner. Without further information on Kelley's age, we can't definitively say if this applies. Thus, in the absence of gross negligence or intentional harm and without knowledge of Kelley's age, the neighbor is typically not liable for injuries to a trespasser.